Mr. Till and respected readers:

Having now read Mr. Till's third rebuttal, I conclude that he has all but given up on his position in this debate. He has made so many concessions that he barely has any position left from which to argue, but we shall notice them momentarily. Mr. Till has complained about not having adequate space for answering arguments. I gave him five extra pages per article [sic] and he took two on top of that and still did not even touch the hem of the garment on answering my arguments. I believe that if he had a hundred pages per article he could not answer my arguments. So, I would appreciate it if Mr. Till would cease from [sic] his complaining about having a lack of space to answer my arguments. Now for his concessions.

Concessions Made By [sic] Till: Since this debate started [sic] Mr. Till has made a number of concessions (modest admissions) which totally surrender his position in the debate. [A] The biggest concession that he has made (which was also stated in his debate with Jim Laws) was where he admitted the possibility of his being in error in regards to his position. He said that he told brother Laws that, [sic] "..it is possible that I am wrong..." [sic] (The McDonald-Till Debate, Till's First Rebuttal,p.9) [sic] [B] In this debate he also concedes his position by answering question number four of my first affirmative. The question was, "Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer it true.) 'It can be absolutely proven that the Bible in its original autographs can be absolutely proven not to be the inspired and inerrant word of Jehovah god.'" His answer to this question was, "False. If an original document is unavailable for examination, how could anyone prove what it was not when it was written." Now he will no doubt say that he has no obligation to disprove anything in this part of the debate, but as usual he is wrong. The dictionary defines the role of the negative writer or speaker in any debate as, [sic] "the side that upholds the contradictory proposition in debate...to [sic] demonstrate the falsity of: Disprove..." [sic] (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary,p.762) [sic] So we agree with Bill Jackson when he said that he knew, [sic] "...that Till didn't study his Bible, but thought that perhaps in his profession there would be some acquaintance with the dictionary." [sic] (The Jackson-Till Debate, Jackson's Fourth Negative.p.2) [sic] The dictionary says that Mr. Till is obligated to disprove my arguments. Therefore, since he is obligated to disprove my proposition and since he has already conceded that my proposition cannot be disproven, he has conceded his position in this debate. Notice the following syllogism--

Major Premise: If Farrell Till is obligated to disprove my proposition, and if he says that he cannot do this, then Farrell Till concedes his position in this debate.

Minor Premise: Farrell Till is obligated to disprove my proposition, and he says that he cannot do this.

Conclusion: Therefore, Farrell Till concedes his position in this debate.

[C] Another concession he has made was on the existence of Moses. Notice, "If Mr. McDonald is looking for a concession (emp. added), I'll give him one and freely admit that there is no way I could possibly prove that Moses did not exist." [sic] (Till's First Rebuttal, p.5) [sic] Well, if Mr. Till cannot prove that Moses did not exist, then maybe he did, and if he did then Mr. Till cannot prove (beyond a doubt) that Moses did not write (by inspiration) the first five books of the Bible. [D] Another concession he made was on the Bible [sic] being of Satanic origin. Notice, "So that I won't be misunderstood, I want to assure the readers that I do not believe that Satan inspired the Bible." [sic] (Till's First Rebuttal, p.16) [sic] [Editor's Note: Readers should also review this section of page 16, which has an additional part of Till's answer that McDonald didn't quote.] Since he does not believe that Satan inspired the Bible, he has no basis for his contentions that such is a possible explanation for the origin of the Bible.

[E] For his next concession he admits that the existence of God would be necessary before the Bible could be inspired by God. Notice, "On the matter of God's existence being relevant to McDonald's proposition, it would of course be necessary for God to exist before he could inspire the writing of a book." [sic] (Till's Second Rebuttal, p.2) [sic] Now, he explains that this concession does not obligate him to disprove the existence of God before he could prove that God did not inspire the writing of the Bible, but again he is wrong. If it is necessary for me to prove that God did exist before he could inspire the writing of a book, then Till is duty bound to disprove the existence of God because he is obligated to disprove any and every argument that I (as the affirmant) may produce. [F] Till concedes his position on knowledge. Till has argued long and hard that knowledge can come only through one or more of the five senses [sic] and by this he means that you would have to have been there to personally experience it with these senses, but now he argues that knowledge can come through information. Notice, "Well, Mr. McDonald, I always use my sense of sight when I read, don't you?" [sic] (Till's Second Rebuttal, p.9) [sic] He also stated that it is possible for me to know who my grandad [sic] was by seeing it on some document . (p.9) [sic] Now, with all of these concessions in mind (seven in all) we can see that he has completely given up on his position. And, as we read his third rebuttal, we can be sure of it.

Begging the Question: He spent most of his third rebuttal trying to show that I had begged the question, but he did not show where I did such one single time. He does not even know what begging the question is. However, it does not surprise me that he accuses me of such because he has accused most of his other opponents (in the written debates that I know anything about) of the very same fallacy. Notice that he tells Jim Laws that he, [sic] "...begged the question." [sic] (The Laws-Till Debate, p.9) [sic] He tells Bill Jackson that he, [sic] "...needs to find himself a book on elementary logic and read what it says about begging the question..." (The Jackson-Till Debate, Till's First Rebuttal,p.5) and perhaps he (Bill Jackson) could see what was wrong with his argument. Then he tells me a number of times that I have begged the question, and even spends most of his third rebuttal trying to prove his contention to the neglect of answering the arguments that I have set forth. However, his arrogance exceeded him when he accused Thomas B. Warren of begging the question. Notice:

When we read clumsily worded syllogisms like this one, even unencumbered with the grammatical errors I have corrected, we can certainly see that Jerry McDonald, contrary to what he obviously thinks, is no logician. His problem seems to be that he has read so many Thomas B. Warren debates that he is beginning to suffer from syllogismitis. Despite his (Thomas B. Warren's jdm) own propensity to beg the question, Warren did at least know enough about logical jargon to make a certain demagogic impression on those in his audience who knew nothing about logic, but McDonald can't even claim that much." [sic] (p.15) [sic]

Now, while I will admit that I am no logician, Till cannot disprove the argument that I made. I will also admit that I have read a lot of debates by brother Warrem. and I am grateful for that opportunity. I believe that a person would be an absolute fool not to take the opportunity to learn from a man like Thomas Warren. However, for this man (who does not even know the difference between textual criticism and higher criticism) to accuse Thomas Warren of begging the question, [sic] is the height of arrogance. Brother Warren received his Ph. D [sic] in Philosophy [sic] from Vanderbilt University [sic] and I am sure that he did not receive it by "begging the question." Everyone [sic] one [sic] of his opponents beg the question. None of them make any arguments that are good arguments, [sic] they beg the question. What does that sound like to you? Is Mr. Till paranoid, [sic] or what? None the less [sic], Mr. Till would not know "begging the question" if it walked up and shook hands with him.

He quotes from Perry Weddle's book, Argument: A Guide to Critical Thinking, in which Weddle gives a poor example of circular reasoning.

"...[sic] Such reasoning is called circular, like that of a teenager caught with a case of beer in his car: "Well, officer, if you don't believe me when I say that I'm of age, here's my driver's license. If you don't trust that, here's my draft card. The draft card's genuine. You can take my word for it." This is about as simple as circular reasoning gets. The boy's word is questioned. The word is backed by the driver's license. So far we have a straight authority argument (see Chapter 4), except that then the driver's license's authenticity is questioned. So the license is not taken as authority. Neither is the draft card. So what ends up "backing" the card? Precisely what was questioned in the first place, the boy's word, [sic] (p. 28).

What I would like to know is, [sic] what would be taken as authoritative in the above case? Would the birth certificate of the teenager suffice? I doubt it, because if the driver's license, [sic] the draft card (which would be based upon the birth certificate) are called into question, then the birth certificate would also necessarily be called into question. Therefore, Weddle has fixed it to where this teenager just cannot possibly prove his age to this officer. The parents [sic] word could not be taken because that would also be begging the question if Weddle is correct. The only reason that the officer should not be able to take the draft card and driver's license as authoritative, in this case, is if he can see that either document has been altered, or if he happens to know the teenager, [sic] and knows that he is not of age. Weddle and Till have it fixed where the authorities cannot be used in proving one's case, and it just does not work that way.

Mr. Till said, "I have twice suggested to him that he take the time to get himself an elementary logic textbook so that he can learn what begging the question is, but since he apparently doesn't intend to do that, I will try to explain to him what it is." [sic] (p.2) [sic] I have a textbook on Logic [sic], thank you! It was written by Irving M. Copi and is entitled Introduction to Logic. Copi says that, [sic] "In [sic] attempting to establish the truth of a proposition, one often casts about for acceptable premisses from which the proposition in question can be deduced as conclusion. If one assumes as a premiss for his argument the very conclusion he intends to prove, the fallacy committed is that of petitio principii, or begging the question." [sic] (p.97) [sic] He then gives an example, [sic] "'To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must be, on the whole, advantageous to the state, for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty, perfectly unlimited, of expressing his sentiments.'" [sic] (p.97) [sic] He goes on to tell us that the premise is not logically irrelevant to the truth of the conclusion since they are both the same statement, for if the premise is true, the conclusion will also be true. However, the premise is logically irrelevant to the purpose of establishing the conclusion. If I were to say that the Bible is free from error, because the Bible is inerrant [sic] then I would be begging the question because the premise does not establish the conclusion. They are both the same statements. If one is true, then the other will be true, but the premise does not establish the conclusion. However, my argument on the inerrancy of the Bible does not beg the question because the premise and the conclusion are not the same. My premise states that if God wrote the Bible, and if it claims inerrancy, and if God cannot lie, then the Bible is inerrant. Now the antecedent, "If [sic] God wrote the Bible, and if it cannot lie.", [sic] and the consequent, "then the Bible is inerrant." [sic] are not one and the same. The premise logically establishes the conclusion because if God did write the Bible, and if it claims inerrancy, and if God cannot lie, then the Bible would be inerrant. Therefore, this argument does not beg the question. And when I prove the premise of this argument, the conclusion will automatically be proven.

Copi gives us a proper example of circular reasoning.

"Sometimes a chain of several arguments is used in attempting to establish a conclusion. Thus one may argue that Shakesphere [sic] is a greater writer than Robbins because people with good taste in literature prefer Shakesphere [sic]. And if asked how one tells who has good taste in literature, one might reply that such persons are to be identified by their preferring Shakesphere [sic] to Robbins. Such a circular argument clearly begs the question and commits the fallacy of petitio principii" (p.98) [sic]

Now this is very different from Weddle's example of the teenager producing his driver's license and draft card. According to Weddle, there is no way in this world that I can prove to any officer of the law, who stops me, that I am actually Jerry D. McDonald and that I own the automobile that I am driving. I guess he would just have to arrest me because I could not possibly prove my identity.

Actually Farrell Till is a good one to talk about begging the question [sic] because he commits this fallacy himself. In my first affirmative I made an argument showing that the agnostics and atheists claim that the Bible is of human origin because it has error in it and to err is human. Till comes back and states that this is not true and gives a syllogism that he thinks is proper. His argument was as follows:

Major Premise: Any book verbally inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity would necessarily be entirely free of textual discrepancies and errors.

Minor Premise: The Bible contains textual discrepancies and errors.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible was not verbally inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity.

I then replied to this argument by saying, "I wonder why Mr. Till thinks that the Bible contains textual discrepancies and errors? [sic] Simply because he thinks that it was written solely by humans and to err is human." [Editor's Note: Actually, McDonald's manuscript used the word men rather than humans.] To this Farrell replies, "As for why I believe the Bible contains textual discrepancies and errors, the answer is simple. I believe the Bible contains discrepancies and errors because it does contain discrepancies and errors. I have found them many times." [sic] (Till's Second Rebuttal, p.7) [sic] What better example of begging the question do we need? He believes the Bible contains error because it contains error!(?) Remember, when one begs the question, he makes his premise and conclusion the same. This is exactly what Till has done. If I were Till, I would never again open my mouth about someone begging the question, especially Thomas B. Warren.

Now let us look at my argument on the authority of the Bible. My major premise states that, [sic] "If the Bible does show man how to live, and if it is to be man's judge, and if it may not be added to or subtracted from, then it is authoritative." Now, is the antecedent the same as the consequent? No! He can say nothing about the antecedent and the consequent of the premise because he knows that they are sound. His idea of begging the question is, [sic] "So how did he prove the truth of his minor premise? He proved it by quoting the Bible." [sic] (p.2) Is that begging the question? No! I am merely giving internal evidence that the Bible is authoritative. Is that not allowed? Well, I guess not, at least as long as Till accepts Weddle's version of begging the question.

He complained because I cited 2 Tim. 3:16,17;sic] they so clearly point out what they mean, [sic] and did not feel that I could say anything to make it [sic] clearer. However, Mr. Till complains and wants me to explicate. Well, he has quoted scripture without explication [sic] and so if he can, I can as well. When he explicates the twenty scriptures he cites in his first rebuttal without explication, [sic] and the five in his second, I will take it under consideration to explicate on [sic] the ones I cited in my affirmatives without explication. He is a fine one to talk about a lack of explication.

He says that I, [sic] "...cannot in legitimate argumentation quote the Bible to prove doubtful biblical issues." [sic] (p.2) [sic] Says who? Where did you find that rule [sic] Mr. Till? Is this one that you fabricated? I can clearly see why he does not want me to quote the Bible, but his assertion is unfounded. He does not want me quoting the Bible because he has no response for its claims. He has no response for the Bible's claim of all sufficiency, he has no response for the Bible's claim for being authoritative, so he contends that I should not be allowed to quote from it. This would be like saying that a person, on trial, should not be allowed to testify in his/her own behalf. He would be laughed out of court for such a claim. The truth is the Bible must be allowed to testify in its own behalf. This is exactly what is taking place when I quote scripture to prove the authority of the Bible. I asked Till in my last affirmative to make an argument that he thinks would be sufficient so [sic] I can see how it should be done. Did we find one from him? No! Why not? Simply because he knew that he could do no better.

[Editor's Note: Readers are asked to access this paragraph to see that Till did show in his third rebuttal how the Bible could be quoted in formulating legitimate arguments for the inspiration and authority of the Bible.]

Next, he tries his hand at presenting us with a syllogism (much like mine) trying to show us that the same argument I used on the authority of the Bible can be used to show that the Holy Qur'an is authoritative. Well, the syllogism is valid, but it is not sound because the Holy Quran [sic] does not teach that it is authoritative. It does not teach that it shows man how to live. It does not teach that it is to be man's judge, and it does not teach that it may not be added to or subtracted from. Therefore, it is not authoritative. Let us notice his arguments, point by point [sic] and I will show where it does not teach what Till contends.

1. He cites Ch. 17:89 to show that the Quran shows man how to live. (He uses the phrase without comment as though my feelings will be hurt, but not at all.) I do not believe that each and every passage must be explicated upon [sic] before a point can be made, so I will proceed to answer him.) Let us look and see if it does! "89. And we have explained To [sic] man, in this Qur-an [sic], every kind of similitude: Yet the grater part of men Refuse [sic] (or receive it) Except [sic] with ingratitude!" Does this teach that it shows man how to live? No! Notice the commentator's comment at the bottom, [sic] "In the Qur-an [sic] everything is explained in detail from various points of view...It [sic] does not merely narrate stories or lay down abstract propositions. It gives every detailed help in outward and inner life." [sic] (The Holy Quran,p.720) [sic] The Commentator [sic] said absolutely nothing about it being man's guide in all matters. It merely says that it gives detailed help in outward and inner life. There, that part of Till's assertion is down.

2. Then he cites Ch. 4:136-141 as showing that the Quran [sic] will be man's judge. Let us notice them and see if they teach any such thing. [Editor's Note: McDonald left out part of this passage, probably inadvertently, so I have inserted the omission in brackets below. He also seems to be quoting Yusufali's translation except that this version used Allah rather than God as McDonald quoted it below. McDonald also capitalized several words that are not capitalized in the on-line version linked to.]

   136 O ye who believe! Believe in God and in his Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent [to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent] to those before (him). Any who denieth God, His angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.

   137. Those who believe, Then reject Faith, Then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in Unbelief,--God will not forgive them Nor guide them on the way.

   138. To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (But) a grievous Penalty;-

   139. Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers Rather than Believers: It is honour they see[k] among them? Nay,--all honour is with God.

   140. Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when Ye hear the Signs of God Held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them Unless they turn to a different Theme: if he [sic, the pronoun here in Yusufali's version is actually ye] did, ye would be like them. For God will collect the Hypocrites and those who deny ["defy" in the Yusufali version] Faith--all in Hell:-

   141. (These are) the ones who Wait and watch about you: If ye do gain A victory from God, they say: "Were we not With you?"--but if the Unbelievers gain A Success, they say (To them): "Did we not Gain an advantage over you, And did we not guard You from the Believers?" But God will judge Betwixt you on the Day of Judgement. And never Will God grant To the Unbelievers A way (to triumphs [sic, this word is singular in the Yusufali version]) Over the Believers.

   Now, do these verses teach that the Holy Quran is going to be man's judge? Not [sic] hardly! These verses merely show that Muslims are not to have anything to do with unbelievers because they will be led astray and God will punish them with the unbelievers. Nothing is said about it being man's judge.

3. Then he brings up Ch. 10:15 to show that it warns against changing its message or believing in false Qurans [sic], and again he missed the mark.

   15. But when Our Clear Signs Are rehearsed unto them, Those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say: "Bring us a Reading Other than this, or change this," Say: "It is not for me, Of my own accord, (emp. added)To change it: I follow Naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were To disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the Penalty of a Great Day (to come)."

Nothing, even in the commentary, says that it is not to be changed. This says that the Muslims are not to change it on their own accord. It implies that changes maybe [sic] made with the proper authorization. Therefore, we find nothing that even implies that the Holy Quran [sic] claims that it is authoritative. This is much different than [sic] what the Bible claims. It specifically says that it is to guide (all) men in all things. It specifically says that it is not to be changed or punishment will result, and it specifically teaches that it shall be the judge for all men everywhere in the day of judgement [sic]. Therefore, what the Holy Quran [sic] teaches and what the Bible teaches are two totally different things.

He says that for me to prove that the Bible is authoritative that [sic] I must establish the moral needs and obligations of man and show that the Bible adddress [sic] all of these subjects. I would think that this would be something which falls under the "all-sufficiency" of the Bible. However, my obligation is to make the claim that the Bible is authoritative, [sic] and back that claim with arguments. If Mr. Till does not agree with me, then it becomes his obligation to bring up areas in which the Bible is not authoritative, and then we can discuss it.

He says that it would be impossible to answer 16 arguments in 20 pages. Well, I disagree with him because not every argument is going to require even one page, which would leave more for those which require more than one page. One need not give several pages of explication to answer each argument. However, I would be happy if he would just answer half of my arguments. I spent my entire first article (which was my obligation) making affirmative arguments, and Mr. Till responded to only three of them. I answered his first rebuttal in my second affirmative then proceeded to make further affirmative arguments [sic] and Mr. Till responds to about three more. In other words, he completely ignored most of my arguments, and I feel that this is unfair. He is obligated to answer each and every argument that I make, whether he likes it or not.

Till's opinion on Wheless' book is not irrelevant in this debate. He wrote me and informed me that this was the most convincing "anti-inerrancy" book that he had ever read. After I obtained a copy of it, I found that it offered nothing by way of being convincing, let alone being the most convincing. However, since Till said that this was the most convincing book he had ever read on this subject, I assumed that he was willing to endorse it. In his second rebuttal he changed from calling it the most convincing to merely being good. When I exposed this change, he tried to wiggle out of his dilemma by saying that when he said that it was a good book that he was actually saying that it was the most convincing book. One would expect much more from an English Instructor [sic] than mistakes like this. If I say that Archer's books are good books, am I saying that they are the most convincing books? No! Of course the most convincing would be good, but to say that it is good does not necessarily mean that it is the most convincing. A swimmer might be a good swimmer, but that does not necessitate that swimmer as being good.

Till feels that the subject of how knowledge is attained is not relevant in this debate. If this is true, then I would not be able to affirm my proposition because anything I had to say would be rebutted with Till's argument that it had to be accepted by faith [sic] which he defines as a belief in something for which there is insufficient evidence to establish fact. Therefore, before this debate could get going [sic] this subject had to be settled, and it apparently has been. It seems that he concedes the position which he took in his debate with Jim Laws.

Till complained because I challenged him to prove that Moses never existed. This he admitted as being impossible. Now what was the point of my challenge? Simply this, I wanted to prove to the readers that Mr. Till's position on knowledge was incorrect. He, at the time, took the position that knowledge comes only through perception by one or more of the five senses, and by this he meant that one would have to personally experience such by those senses before he could call it knowledge. In other words, before one could say that he knew that the Bible was inspired he would have to have been there to experience inspiration through one or more of the five senses. When I made this challenge Till stayed with his position and said that such knowledge was not attainable.

However, there was a second part of that challenge and that was for him to prove only by the use of his five senses that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. To this he says, "To prove that Moses, if he was a real person, did not write the Pentateuch is another matter entirely." [sic] (Till's First Rebuttal, p.6) [sic] Then he proceeded to show us only by the use of his five senses that....(?) Right? Wrong, he did no such thing. What did he use to try to show that Moses did not write the Pentateuch? He went to the very source that I told you he would go to and that was the arguments of the higher critics. Now, I said that he would go to the higher critics, but whether or not, [sic] he quoted them is beside the point. He made the arguments that he learned from them [sic] and that is the same thing. So, the challenge that I made, [sic] was never taken. I told you he would not [sic] and he proved my contention on knowledge true.

Then he tells us that common sense will show that one cannot make sixteen fully developed arguments on fourteen pages. (I will get around to his complaint about the questions later.) My question is, "Why not?" Simply because Till thinks that one must write page after page in order to make one simple argument. If I was [sic] going to make an argument that I exist, I would not need more than a half of a page to prove it. Of course, Mr. Till would say that I could never prove my existence (or at least I think he would) because as an agnostic he does not believe that anything can be proven. I wonder how he could be sure of such a position? In The Warren-Flew Debate, brother Warren tried to get Dr. Flew to make an argument rather than throw out various statements. He said:

There is a very fine statement found in the book Critical Thinking by Professor Max Black, Professor [sic] of Logic [sic] at Cornell Univeristy [sic], in which he quotes Isaiah Stamp to this effect: that 400 pages of crowded fact and argument may deceive the very elect, but when reduced to a three line syllogism, will lay bare the bones of the argument and expose the fallacious reasoning involved in it.

Also Immanuel Kant, in Critique of Pure Reason, said, "Fallacious and misleading arguments are most easily detected if set out in correct syllogistic form." [sic] (Introduction to Logic,p.198) [sic] Now, Till complains because I have used syllogistic arguments and have not filled page after page with just one or two arguments. Remember Dr. Black's statement from Isaiah Stamp that 400 pages of fact and argument could deceive the very elect? It is no surprise to me that Mr. Till does not like my syllogisms, [sic] I have never met a false teacher yet that did. They would rather fill page after page of argument (most of which are repeats) because that way one gets lost in maze [sic] and finds it difficult to find the way out. However, I intend to continue my line of argumentation [sic] and if Mr. Till does not like it [sic] all I can say is, "I am sorry about that!". [sic] I happen to know that syllogistic arguments are much more effective than Till's style of filling the whole manuscript in answering one to three arguments. One can be thorough and still answer all of his opponents [sic] arguments. I have done it in this debate, [sic] and have even had room left over, in each article, to make further affirmative arguments.

He says that I believe that little more than saying that certain traditional beliefs about the Bible are true is all that is needed to prove that they are true. This I deny! I have given arguments for each and every point I have made in this debate [sic] and to date, most of those arguments have never been touched. So, until he does, they will stand.

He said, "However to show the absurdity of his complaint that I am evading masterful arguments that he has presented in defense of his proposition, I do want to comment briefly on his existence-of-God argument." [sic] (p.5) [sic] And how does he answer this argument? Notice:

"...His syllogism and support of it, such as it was, barely filled three pages in his first manuscript. Countless volumes have been written on the subject of God's existence without resolving the matter either way, yet McDonald believes that he settled the question in only three, double-spaced manuscript pages! Do the readers need any more than this to see just how shallow his sense of logic is? The man is so accustomed to preaching to audiences ready to believe anything that comes from the pulpit that he simply doesn't know how to present his case in a situation where proof is demanded." [sic] (pp.5,6) [sic]

Now, that really answered my argument. Right! Wrong! To hear him, he gave such a good response that it knocked me out of my proverbial chair. Well, if he did, it was because I was laughing so hard that I fell out. I cannot help it that some have not proven the existence of God. There are many books that do absolutely prove God's existence [sic] and I would suggest that Mr. Till obtain one and read it, but then he would probably say that the author was begging the question or some nonsense like that. However, I would like to suggest to you (the reader) that you obtain a copy of The Warren-Flew Debate, and/or The Warren-Matson Debate. Both of these books will prove unequivocally, [sic] that God does exist.

[Editor's Note: McDonald made references to Adrian Swindler in his second defense, so readers will probably like to know that Mr. Swindler is a former Church-of-Christ preacher, who deconverted with two of his brothers, who were also Church-of-Christ preachers. Their deconversion came after they had traveled from Illinois and Iowa to attend the Warren-Flew Debate in Texas. This debate raised several perplexing questions about what they had always taken for granted, so when the debate was published, they obtained copies and studied all of the arguments and rebuttals, which only increased the number of serious questions troubling them. They went then to Searcy, Arkansas, to confer with James D. Bales, a respected professor of Bible and religion at Harding College (a Church-of-Christ institution that is now Harding University), but they did not receive satisfactory answers to their questions. Eventually, all three of these brothers, who had preached in the Church of Christ for decades, became agnostics and left the ministry because of questions that were raised by Flew's arguments in The Warren-Flew Debate. Rather than proving unequivocally the existence of God to three Church-of-Christ preachers, this debate caused their eventual deconversion. Adrian Swindler, who is now in his 80s, resides in Elmwood, Illinois, where he publishes the local newspaper. Even McDonald indicated below that he knows of Swindler's deconversion after attending the Warren-Flew Debate.]

Then he again takes the position that if God's existence could be unequivocally proven then all reasonably intelligent people would accept his existence. I answered this by showing that this statement was not necessarily true, and I also stated that God's existence was accepted by most reasonably intelligent people. How does he answer this? He says that most reasonably intelligent people do not accept God's existence, but they accept the existence of a god. He says that only a relatively few believe in the same God that I believe in. I challenge his assertion here! The Mormons have a different view than [sic] the one portrayed in the Bible. The Muslims have a different view than [sic] the Biblical view. However, when it gets right down to it, they still believe in Jehovah God, [sic] they describe him differently, but they still believe in him. I do not doubt that Till's thesaurus lists the names of 343 separate Gods, but this does not mean that most people believe in these Gods. The World Book Encyclopedia says that, [sic] "Most (emp. added) religions stress monotheism or the believe [sic] in One God. They teach that all the world's powers are expression of one Supreme Being." [sic] (Volume 7,p.229) [sic]

He then goes to my argument on the possibility of the inerrancy of the scriptures and says that I have left something out of the syllogism. He said that God would have to be all-knowing before he could have the power to have men write the Bible to be free from error. I admit that God must be all-knowing before he could know what to tell the writers to write, but here we are not discussing his knowledge, [sic] we are discussing his power. This is another quibble by Till.

He quibbles further and brings up the Quran [sic] and says that the same arguments used to show that the Bible is inspired can be used to show that the Quran [sic] is inspired [sic] and I have already shown where this is false. I suggest that he make the same arguments on the Quran [sic] (or the Avesta) that I have made on the Bible and see if they hold up. If they do, then he has proven his point, but if they do not, then he has some arguments to answer. He says that he was under the impression that I was going to prove that God inspired the Bible. Well, I did give proof, but he just blew off all of my arguments by saying that they either were not relevant to the issue or that they begged the question. What can I say?

Next, he deals with my argument for the Bible [sic] being our sole authority in religious matters. He says, "Even if he could establish that the argument is valid (and he can't), it would in no way prove that the Bible is the verbally inspired, inerrant word of God." The argument is valid and the major premise is true. Why must we do everything by the authority of Christ, he asks? Simply because Christ is God [sic] and as God he was the creator of all that there is. As creator of all that there is [sic] he is deserving of our worship, service, and obedience. Therefore, any book he wrote would be our sole authority in making our religious decisions, and any book he wrote would necessarily be free from error.

Then he gets into the errant copies and translations. This is something that I have never denied, but the proposition says "original autographs", [sic] Mr. Till. I am not obligated to prove that the copies were inerrant. I am not obligated to prove that there are no mistakes or mistranslations (either purposely or accidental) in the copies and translations. My proposition specifies "original autographs". [sic] And this is what I am proving. Now, what about the errant translations? Of course, we have translations which have error in them, but is that to say that they all have error in them? No! With the help of the science of textual criticism we can look at variants and see what the writer originally said. We can use the testimony of the early church fathers and so on. But, [sic] I have already explained this once, [sic] why do I need to do it again?

He wants to apply my argument on the omnipotence (and he adds omniscient [sic]) of God to the Book of Mormon. That is fine with me, [sic] let us defeat this argument so [sic] we can have it out of the way. The first part of his antecedent is accurate. God is omnipotent and omniscient. The Bible states this and so does the Book of Mormon. However, the second part of the antecedent is not correct. God did not reveal the Book of Mormon to man through divinely guided witnesses and messengers. There is no claim for such in the Book of Mormon. He cites 2 Nephi 27:6-26 to show that the Book of Mormon makes such a claim [sic] and I intend to show that it does not. Before I do, allow me to quote from the Book of Mormon where it disavows any claim of divine inspiration. "And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge." [sic] (1 Nephi 1:3) [sic] "Nevertheless, I do not awrite anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself." (1 Nephi 19:6) [sic] "And it came to pass that I, Jacob, began to be old; and the record of this people being kept on the other plates of Nephi, wherefore, I conclude this record, declaring that I have written according to the best of my knowledge..." [sic] (Jacob 7:26) [sic] So much for Mormon inspiration! The passage that Till refers to does not refer to the book [sic] of Mormon, [sic] but rather a book that is being prophecied [sic] about by the book [sic] of Mormon. If it were the Book of Mormon it would be prophecying [sic] about itself. Really!

Till says, "Every bit of this manuscript has so far been devoted to explaining and illustrating by his own 'syllogisms' how Mr. McDonald has consistently begged the question in presenting his arguments, so I'm perfectly willing to leave it to our readers to decide if he needs instruction on this point." [sic] (pp.10,11) [sic] So am I! Let us leave it to our readers [sic] and we will see who has the strongest argument. Truth has nothing to fear from investigation.

He says that I have not demolished his response to my argument on the Bible [sic] being of divine origin, but I think that the reader will have a different opinion. Let me caution the reader, however, in not allowing Mr. Till to intimidate you. Till tags those who disagree with him as not being criticial thinkers and not using their brains. In other words, if I do not agree with Till, I am not a critical thinker, according to Till, but his saying so does not make it so. You do not have to agree with Till to be a critical thinker, [sic] as long as you look at the evidence on both sides and draw your conclusion from that evidence [sic] you are a critical thinker.

He wants to know where the contradiction is which I claimed was in his first rebuttal on my giving no evidence and giving internal evidence. He asks, "What evidence did McDonald present...? He confused quoting scripture with giving proof." [sic] (p.19) [Editor's Note: McDonald's truncation of Till's statement here distorted his question. He actually said, as the link just given will show, "What evidence did McDonald present to prove the 'truth' of his minor premise? He did what all fundamentalists do when their backs are against the wall. He confused....] He is the one who called it evidence. Then he says that I did not give any evidence at all. That is contradictory, or at least it was when I studied logic, [sic] there is no telling what [sic] is according to Till's standards.

He asked how, if I could establish all of the good things traditionally claimed for the Bible, i.e., its wonderful unity and harmony, etc, [sic] how would I ever be able to prove that these things did not just happen through a chain of unlikely but nevertheless natural circumstances. All these things have never happened by themselves before. No other book possesses the characteristics that the Bible does. With the complexity of the Bible being considered, the only way it could have happened was by divine intervention.

Then he goes back and deals with my arguments on why men could not have been the sole writers of the Bible. I have already extensively dealt with this matter [sic] and I refer the reader back to my first and second affirmatives for my arguments on such. I refuse to waste precious space reiterating on this point when all one has to do is to return to those articles and read them.

Admittedly, there are many places in the Quran [sic] where it speaks of inspiration, but Muslim inspiration is, to say the least, a unique point of view. I read all the passages I could find on the subject and found no places where inspiration is claimed for the book itself. Most of these claims are showing that the Quran [sic] is revealed to the reader by inspiration. A good example of this is found in Ch. VI:19 where it says, "Say: 'What thing is most Weighty in evidence?' Say: 'God is witness between me and you; This Qur-an [sic] hath been Revealed to me by inspiration, That I may warn you..." [sic] [Editor's Note: The rest of this verse says, "[That I may warn you] and all whom it reaches. Can ye possibly bear witness that besides Allah there is another Allah?" Say: "Nay! I cannot bear witness!" Say: "But in truth He is the one Allah, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him."] This seems to point out that each Muslim that reads the Quran [sic] is inspired so [that] he can understand it. I found no place where the book claims inspiration for itself. The only thing resembling this was found in Ch. XLII:17 where a statement was made that an Arabic Quran [sic] was being sent to warn them, but this was not the Quran [sic] to which that statement referred. [Editor's Note: Here is the exact quotation of this verse from the Yusufali version: "It is Allah Who has sent down the Book in Truth, and the Balance (by which to weigh conduct). And what will make thee realise that perhaps the Hour is close at hand?" A footnote in Maulana Muhammad Ali's translation of this verse talks at length about "the balance" to indicate that its purpose was to guide men to "conduct themselves with equity" so that they "may be able to carry out the ordinances contained in the Book." The rest of this long footnote clearly identifies "the book" as "the Holy Qur'an."]

Then he complained because he says that I overlooked another possible source of the Bible in my syllogism on the origin of the Bible. However, I did take the Satanic origin under consideration in my first affirmative [sic] and Till knows it. I know he knows it because of the following statement from his first rebuttal, "'The Bible is either of supernatural origin or it is of human origin,' and this change would validly allow for a possible origin of the Bible that Mr. McDonald, before I had even had a chance to respond to his syllogism, tried unsuccessfully to head of [sic] at the pass." [sic] (Till's First Rebuttal, p.12) [sic] So he knows that I did make reference to the possibility that the Bible was of Satanic origin. What I did not respond to was Till's long drawn out explication of the fight between gnostics and the true Christians. I saw no point in it since neither one of us believed that the Bible was of Satanic origin, and until he can give me a good reason for doing it, I simply will not respond to such a waste of space and time. However, I demolished that position before I began my arguments to show that man could not have written it. This argument was made in my first affirmative [sic] and I ask the reader to go back and read this argument for himself.

He goes back to 1 Kings 1-36 and tries unsuccessfully to make this a literal thing. This was a vision, [sic] and not something that literally happened. By the usage of the figure of speech called anthropopathea [sic] [anthropopatheia: the ascription of human or animal passions, actions, or attributes to God.] God was ascribed as sending a lying spirit into the mouths of Ahab's prophets [sic] mouths [sic]. The same type of figure is found in Psalm 17:3 where David said, [sic] "...thou [sic] has tried me and shall find nothing..." [sic] God did not really try him, [sic] he allowed him to be tried. Zachariah 13:9 is another (these are places where Bullinger says that the figure of speech anthropopathea [sic] is used, [sic] these are found on page 889 of his book Figures of Speech used in the Bible) place where this figure is used, [sic] "And I (God, jdm) will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried..." [sic] God is not really doing the trying, but he allowing [sic] them to be tried.

The reason this will not work for Till is because Till is not a divine being needing to have human attributes, characteristics, and/or actions ascribed to him to make humans understand what he is doing. God is!

He can make fun of my syllogism all he wants, but he asked for it [sic] and I produced it. Now, making fun and saying that I am no logician will not answer the syllogism. He is going to have to show that it is either invalid, or unsound or both. This is something I do not believe that he can do, [sic] otherwise [sic] he would not be wasting space making fun of it.

He can make fun of the Biblical account of the flood, the Egyptian plagues and Balaam's donkey all he wants, but making fun is not answering. Saying that these things are ridiculous is not the same as answering. If his arguments against the Egyptian plagues (that he sent to Moffitt for his first defense) are any example of what he has, Bible believers have absolutely nothing to fear. Jerry will answer them sufficiently.

[Editor's Note: McDonald was referring here to a written debate that Till and Jerry Moffitt began in the early 1990s when he was minister of the Church of Christ in Portland, Texas. After three exchanges, Moffitt made no further replies, just as Jim Laws had done earlier in another written debate. In 1995, Moffitt and Till conducted an oral debate on the existence of the Hebrew god Yahweh. During one of Till's speeches, when he made a reference to Moffitt's having quit the written debate, Moffitt stood up, interrupted Till, apologized for not having yet responded to Till's last affirmative manuscript, and then told the audience that he was going to give priority to finishing this debate. That was twelve years ago, but he has still not sent any reply to Till's third affirmative manuscript in which Till was still identifying absurdities and inconsistencies in the stories of the Egyptian plagues.]

Then he says that I tried to get him to defend Dr. Flew. No, I did nothing of the sort! I merely showed that Till contradicted Dr. Flew on objective morality. Dr. Flew needs no one to defend him, [sic] he is perfectly capable of doing that himself. Farrell was unimpressed with Dr. Flew's carlessness. Dr. A.G.N. Flew, Professor [sic] of Philosophy [sic], one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto II, one of the champions of the world of Atheism [sic] is branded as being careless by Mr. Till, Professor [sic] of..., [sic] Professor [sic] of....(?) Oh, I know! Professor of English. What arrogance! It sure is a shame that Flew was careless, because that does not say a whole lot for Adrian Swindler's conversion to atheism. Notice what Swindler had to say about Flew, "Well, I attended the Warren-Flew Debate in Denton, Texas [sic] and have the book. However, all the people that went with me to that debate have become converted to the basic premise espoused by Dr. Flew...We [sic] were believers before..." [sic] (The McDonald-Swindler Debate, Swindler's Second Negative, p.5) [sic] Since Dr. Flew was careless, I guess that means that Swindler's conversion was done on a basis of carelessness. A careless conversion! He wanted to know why Dr. Flew, in his debates with Warren and Habermas [sic] did not say this or say that. [Editor's Note: the link just given will show that Till's comments about these debates were directed primarily to Flew's failure to point out that Habermas's arguments for the resurrection begged the question of New Testament accuracy in its accounts of the resurrection.] The reason is simple, Mr. Till. Dr. Flew is a thinking man [sic] and as such he looks ahead and sees what the consequences of his statements will be. He knew better than to say very much [sic] and so he used his head and used only the statements he thought would strengthen his case. When brother Warren met Joe Barnhart in 1980, students of the North Texas State University wondered why Dr. Barnhart did not say this or say that. I believe it was Andrew Connally who gave the best answer that could have been given, [sic] "...he [sic] knew better than to say these things." One of the big differences between Dr. Flew and Mr. Till is that Dr. Flew was careful about what he said and what questions he answered and Mr. Till is not. That is why Mr. Till blindly answered the questions I have asked and has gotten himself into trouble, but we shall discuss this later.

Now for the so-called contradiction between 2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:12. Mr. Till thinks that his three pages of explication on [sic] this problem has really done me in. He says, "There is so much wrong with McDonald's 'resolution' of the problem that I hardly know where to begin pointing out his mistakes." He says that I just did not read far enough in 2 Samuel chapter 21 because verses 10-14 says [sic] that the famine ended. Oh? Where do they say that? I read all the way through those four [sic] verses and found no place where the scriptures say that the famine had ended. Perhaps he was talking about verse nine, "And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of the barley harvest." This does not say the famine had ended, [sic] it merely said that these people were put to death in the days of harvest. Cook says that this was, [sic] "The barley harvest (about the middle or towards the end of April) was [sic] earlier than the wheat harvest." [sic] (Bible Commentary on the Old Testament, I Samuel--Esther, p.118) [sic] In other words, this was when the harvest should come. It was talking about a season, not a literal harvest. Verse 9 says that Saul's grandsons were put to death, [sic] "...in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest." Now if the phrase, [sic] "...days of harvest..." [sic] indicates that the famine had ended, then the famine had ended before these men were put to death. No! The phrase, [sic] "...in the days of harvest..." [sic] were [sic] used to merely denote a season, nothing more. No, help here, eh [sic] Till!

Perhaps he got his idea from verse 10, [sic] "...from the beginning of harvest until the water dropped upon them out of heaven..."? [sic] The World Book Encyclopedia [sic] Vol. 6 [sic] says that, [sic] "Famines come when crops fail or food canot be sent where it is needed. These conditions are chiefly cause by war, floods, droughts, or harmful insects such as the locusts." [sic] (p.30) [sic] Mr. Till wants this famine to be a drought, but the Bible does not specify what kind of famine it was. If it was a drought, then Mr. Till might have a point, but he cannot say that it was a drought. No help here, either! There is no indication that the famine had ended.

Then he talked about the fact that these are two parallel accounts and that this was a record of the conversations between Gad and David. He says that these accounts would have to be the same, but of course this is not even a rule that he will follow. Till says concerning Davids [sic] confession, "Variations in the wording of David's confession to Yahweh are so slight as to be easily explained by the whims of translation." [sic] (p.23) [sic] Oh? If these are two parallel accounts (and they are) and if Mr. Till's rule is correct (and it is not) [sic] then these two would have to read exactly the same, with no variances. The truth of the matter is, each writer (by divine inspiration) wrote, essentially the same thing, but there were some variances in the narratives because of the different writing methods of the writers. Is it not possible that Gad told David that he would be punished by three years of famine which, when added on to the famine that they were already suffering, would result in seven years? Is that impossible? Are your sure that the writers wrote exactly, word for word, the conversations that took place? No! He is not sure, and his argument is is [sic] merely a quibble. Then after all his complaints, Mr. Till says, "Slight variations in the wording of what Gad said to David in presenting the three choices could be explained on the basis of one writer choosing to tell more details of the conversation than the other...". [sic] Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Is that not exactly what I contended for in my last articles? Yes! [Editor's Note: the link just given to Till's "slight-variations" statement will show that McDonald's truncated quotation, indicated by the ellipsis, left off an important qualifying but.]

Now to get to his response to my argument on the N.T. Canon. I am surprise [sic] that he did not accuse me of begging the question again. In responding to my claim that inspiration can be supported by the intrinsic content, he says that it is of no more value than an arbitrary list given by an Islamic mullah in defense of what he believes constitutes the characteristics of inspiration. Does he care to try his hand at quoting the Quran [sic] again? Find where it has the same intrinsic content that the books of the New Testament have. He also claims that The Epistle of Barnabas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Clement and dozens of other apocryphal works have this same intrinsic content. I do not not [sic] have these works, so I do not know if this is their center [sic] theme or not. Therefore, since Mr. Till seems to know that this is true, I challenge him to prove it.

Then he says that other books on morality transform lives as well as the New Testament books. Again he is wrong. He says that the lives of early gnostics [sic] were transformed by the Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Phillip and other apocryphal books which have been excluded from the New Testament Canon. He continues to say that lives have been transformed by the writings of Jospeh Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White and others, but I would not consider them inspired. He is correct in that I do not consider them inspired, but to say that lives have been transformed by them is incorrect. Lives have been influenced greatly by these works, but transformed! Lives have never been transformed solely by these writings. These writings need the person who wrote them, [sic] or someone to preach them to even influence people. The Bible (all by itself) can take a person from the dregs of humanity and work directly upon that person's heart so as to make him change. All one needs to do is to read the Bible (with the right attitude, and motive, and rightly divide it) and that person's life can be transformed. These other books cannot do that.

Finally he tries to show where Origin [sic], Irenaeus, and Tertullian omitted part of the books of the New Testament and indorsed [sic] other books which are not part of the New Testament, and again I say that he is wrong. Mr. Tenney in his book, New Testament Survey did quite an extensive piece of work on these people and these works [sic] and he never said that these people indorsed [sic] The Apocalypse of John and The Shepherd of Hermas. He said that, [sic] "With the age of Irenaeus, who flourished about A.D. 170, there was no question that the books of the New Testament were authoritative...Irenaeus [sic] used and quoted at length all four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul, many of the General Epistles, and Revelation...He [sic] alluded to every book of the New Testament except Philemon and III John." (New Testament Survey, p.407) [sic] I wonder what that does to Till's claim.

[Editor's Note: The internet wasn't available when this debate was in progress, but with easy access to such sites as "Canonicity... What It Meant to the Early Church, present-day readers can easily verify that such early Christian leaders as Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, Cyprian of Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Caesaria, although in agreement that all four gospels and most of Paul's epistles were inspired, disagreed about Philemon, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Some of them accepted these; others didn't. A chart on this site will show that some of them also accepted Shepherd of Hermas, Wisdom, the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and others.]

"Tertullian of Carthage...quoted [sic] from all of the New Testament except Philemon, James, II and III John." [sic] (p.407) [sic]

Now concerning Origin [sic] and Till's claim that Origin [sic] considered The Apocalypse of John to be inspired, but rejected II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and James. [sic] Tenney says that, [sic]

"...He [sic] divided the sacred books into two classes, the homologoumena, which were undoubtedly genuine and which were accepted by all the churches, and the antilegomnena, which were disputed and not accepted by all the churches. The former included the Gospels, thirteen epistles of Paul, I Peter, I John, Acts and the Apocalypse (Revelation, jdm). The latter consisted of Hebrews [sic] II Peter, II and III John, James, and Jude. In the same class he placed Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Dicache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews." [sic] (p.408) [sic]

This does not say that he did not consider 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, and Jude as not being inspired, [sic] he merely placed them here because they were disputed, but this may be another example of Mr. Till [sic] not reading correctly. Or maybe he did read correctly, but the book he read is not correct. I do not have the book he listed, but rest assured that I will get it. Now all Mr. Till has to do is to worry about how I will use it against him.

There are still many arguments that Mr. Till has not answered. He is getting further and further behind with every article that passes. He had better try to catch up. Now for questions.

Question:

1. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer, we will assume that your answer is true.) "Knowledge can come by reading about something as well as being there to see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, and/or smell it."

2. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer, we will assume that your answer is true.) "...To [sic] sustain his proposition, he must therefore prove that, even though he lives in the 20th century, he has somehow perceived through one or more of his senses the exact circumstances under which all the books of the Bible were originally written hundreds and even thousands of years ago so that he can now, in our time, know that all of these books were written by the inspiration of God. In order to have experienced such perceptions, however, he would have had to have been all of the men God presumably chose to write the Bible so that he could attest to whatever they saw, heard, tasted, smelled, and/or felt when they were writing under the influence of divine guidance. If not that, at the very least he would have had to have been with these inspired men while they were writing the Bible so that he could testify to having perceived in some way whatever happens when men are divinely inspired to write.

3. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer, we will assume that your answer is true.) "It is valid for one to use logic, and the testimony of others, and the authorities to prove the inspiration of the Bible."

4. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer, we will assume that your answer is true.) "God was guilty of real moral atrocities when he had Saul utterly destroy the Amalekites."

5. Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer, we will assume that your answer is true.) "The Old Testament almost bleeds with moral atrocities perpetrated presumably in obedience to Yahweh's commands."

Questions Answered:

One: Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "Before there can be real moral atrocities, there must be real (objective) morality."

[Till's Answer:  True. How could there be objective immorality unless there  were objective moral laws to violate? This is not to say, however, that I believe in the existence of objective moral laws, because I do not. I am simply recognizing that there could never be objective moral atrocity unless there was first objective moral law. This is somewhat like saying that federal crimes could not be committed unless there are federal laws to violate.]

McDonald's Reply: He says [sic] is true. There cannot be moral atrocities without there being real (objective) moral right and wrong.

Two: Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "It is false that God, as a divine being, and as creator of all life, would have the right to decide who should live and who should die without becoming guilty of real (objective) moral wrong."

[Till's Answer: If objective moral laws do in fact exist, then God, if he too exists, would also be subject to those objective moral laws, wouldn't he? If not, why not? Will McDonald say that it is all right for God to be objectively immoral?]

McDonald's Reply: He did not answer with a true or false answer, so as was stated in the question, we will assume that his answer is true. It is false that God can take human life without committing real (objective) moral wrong. Now, here is the catch. Till says that God [Yahweh] is guilty of moral atrocities. At the same time he says that real (objective) moral right and wrong does [sic] not exist. Then he tells us that there can never be real moral atrocities without real (objective) moral right and wrong. Is he saying that God is guilty of something that does not exist? Or is he saying that there is real (objective) moral right and wrong because God violated it. [sic] If he says that God is not guilty of real moral atrocities, then he has no basis for his complaint against the Bible in this area. If he says that God is guilty of real moral atrocities then he admits that there is real (objective) moral right and wrong. If he admits that there is real (objective) moral right and wrong, he must show where this morality originiated [sic], [sic] and where it may be found.

Three: Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "It is possible for God to be infinite in some of his attributes and finite in others; for example, He can be infinite in love, but finite in justice."

[Answer: True. If God exists--and please notice that I said if--the situation described would be possible. This answer should not be construed to mean that I am admitting that God does exist.]

McDonald's Reply: He says that it is true, that God can be infinite in some of his attributes and finite in others. For example he can be infinite in love, [sic] finite in justice. Says who? Where did Till get this from [sic?] Is this his own idea of God? How could God be God and be infinite in one attribute and finite in another? If God is finite in any attribute he is nothing more than a super-human [sic] being. The Bible depicts him as being infinite in all attributes.

Four: How are you able to come to your conclusion in the  above question? (Please indicate all appropriate answers. If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is choice A.) [A] intuition, [B] deduction from the concept of God, [C] deduction from some empirical fact, [D] deduction from the concept of God and some empirical fact, or [E] something else (please  explain).

[Answer: B.]

McDonald's Reply: He says that he came to this conclusion from the concept of God. Whose concept? From where did this concept come? Is this Till's subjective concept, his own personal concept of God? This may explain why Till does not believe in Jehovah God, [sic] or the Bible because the Bible's concept of God is much different than [sic] Till's.

Five: Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "The idea of the Bible [sic] being inspired by God involves logical contradiction."

[Answer: False. I do not contend that the idea of the Bible's being inspired of God involves logical contradiction. I contend that known facts about the Bible, especially the nature of its content, logically contradict the idea that it was inspired of God.]

McDonald's Reply: He says that the answer is false. He does not contend that the idea of the Bible [sic] being inspired of God involves logical contradiction, [sic] but that the known facts about the Bible contradict the idea that the Bible is inspired by God. Again, where does this idea come from? If the known facts about the Bible are as Till contends then he should have answered in the affirmative, because if the facts are as Till says then God could not have inspired the Bible. If this is true, then the idea of the Bible [sic] being inspired by God does involved [sic] logical contradiction, but this is something he cannot prove and that is why he answered the question the way he did. He did not want to be responsible for showing why and how the idea of the Bible involves logical contradiction. However, since he answered the question the way he did, we can say that the idea of the Bible [sic] being inspired of God does not involve logical contradiction. Therefore, there are (according to Till) no errors in the Bible.

Since Till has asked no questions, I cannot answer them. Therefore, at this time I will proceed to make further affirmative arguments.